Spider-Man star Tobey Maguire is among more than a dozen high-profile Hollywood celebrities being sued in connection with a mega-millions illegal gambling ring that ran high-stakes underground poker games, Star magazine is reporting exclusively.

Maguire, 35, won more than $300,000 from a Beverly Hills hedge fund manager who embezzled investor funds and orchestrated a Ponzi scheme in a desperate bid to pay off his monster debt to the star and others, it's alleged.

An FBI investigation into Brad Ruderman, the CEO of Ruderman Capital Partners, uncovered how he lost $25 million of investor money in clandestine poker games held on a twice weekly basis in suites at the luxury Beverly Hills hotel, Four Seasons, and the Viper Room on Sunset Boulevard.

To be fair, the issue isn’t the poker game. This is about some idiot using his businesses $ to pay gambling debts. So he’s in jail. Now he’s suing the guys who he lost to! Only in America. Is John Edwards his lawyer?

2
posted on 06/22/2011 8:21:33 AM PDT
by thefactor
(yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)

Maguire, 35, won more than $300,000 from a Beverly Hills hedge fund manager who embezzled investor funds and orchestrated a Ponzi scheme in a desperate bid to pay off his monster debt to the star and others, it's alleged.

This stuff happens all the time, though usually on a lower level. Around here, the local bookie (small-time football betting) got busted because somebody’s wife got pissed at her husband for losing a couple thousand bucks, so she ratted out the bookie.

If the plaintiff can prove that the embezzled funds were used in this illegal poker game, hell win.

Well, no. Even if we are to stipulate that the embezzled funds were used in a poker game, once they hit the table, they were gone. The alleged victims of embezzlement are seeking money from other players in the poker games. How do you determine that Maguire "won" $300,000 from the embezzler? How do you know Maguire did not subsequently "lose" that money to another person at the table?

For that matter, if the embezzled funds were used to purchase a Slurpee, could the victims sue 7-11?

This is unlike Madoff's ponzi scheme. In that case, victims' lawyers pursued funds from other participants who had profited from the underlying scheme (wittingly or no). In this case, Maguire et. al. were not participants in the underlying act, i.e. the embezzlement. It's a lost cause.

“Maguire won as much as $1 million a month over a period of three years, one source told Star, which is on newsstands Wednesday”.

The IRS is going to be very interested in this. They are only interested in the income from gambling. Not whether it is legal or illegal. They especially like “high profile” people to prosecute. They are looking at their tax returns as I type this, I’m sure.

I read this as a suit by the bilked investors against the crook’s poker-playing buddies. I believe the law allows them an avenue to “claw back” their losses from the recipients of those losses, as the recipients were also engaged in an illegal activity.

Similar to what the goobermint is trying with Madhoff investors who got out early and lost only a little or even made a profit. In that case, however, the government will have a hard time proving that the receipients of the fraudulently obtained funds were themselves committing a crime, as if they knew Madhoff was running a scam or were part of the operation.

I would prefer to see justice. If all they did was gamble illegally, then they might face the courts for that. However, as a conservative, I would prefer that the government stay out of the private lives of all Americans, no matter how much I detest their politics.

If you pay a contractor to build you a house, and that contractor takes your money, builds you a house, but does not pay his suppliers (brick, tile, services, etc.), those supplies may place a lien on your property, even though YOU paid the contractor. The house is the expression of the fraud.

Unless you get a “stipulation against liens” which states that as long as you pay the general contractor, the subs cannot place a lien against your property. Believe me, it comes in handy when your general contractor declares bankruptcy and leaves his subs hanging.

24
posted on 06/22/2011 11:17:51 AM PDT
by cuz_it_aint_their_money
(I'm voting for Sarah Palin in 2012. Even if I have to write her name in!)

"Even if we are to stipulate that the embezzled funds were used in a poker game, once they hit the table, they were gone"

Actually, not exactly. I won't bore you with the legal finer points, but in law there is something known as an "ill-gotten gain". This would be that. Gambling like this in California is illegal. In fact, it's a felony.

"How do you know Maguire did not subsequently "lose" that money to another person at the table?"

For the purposes of this discussion, whatever Maguire did with the funds once he received them, is irrelevant. He still benefited from the ill-gotten gains. "This is unlike Madoff's ponzi scheme."

To an extent. If the Feds could have proved that Madoff used those monies in another illegal enterprise, and the other party to the transaction knew it was an illegal enterprise (and in some instances, even if the other party didn't know), the money could be recovered under the same principle.

The plain legal truth is that Maguire is in a corner and he'll probably be on the hook for this cash. The reason the others aren't named in the suit is probably because they weren't stupid enough to accept a check like Maguire was.

If other checks do surface, you can bet you'll see additional defendants added to the complaint.

"Im sure all the Hollywood leftists reported this income to the IRS "

I have absolutely no doubt that the IRS is coming through the tax returns of all those named. From what I understand, Maguire actually accepted a check for payment of a marker he gave to this guy. I'm not sure if anyone else was that stupid. It was probably a (for the most part) cash business, which would make it a bit more problematic for the IRS - not impossible, but problematic.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.